I think I understand what you're saying, gan, but please correct me if I don't:

You think that because science is limited to the study of the physical universe that the knowledge derived from it must be incomplete and therefore wrong.

I agree that one would be in error to suppose that science alone can ever provide a total picture of reality. As Erwin Schrödinger said...

"The sensation of colour cannot be accounted for by the physicist's objective picture of light-waves. Could the physiologist account for it, if he had fuller knowledge than he has of the processes in the retina and the nervous processes set up by them in the optical nerve bundles and in the brain? I do not think so."

Schrodinger was pointing out that the realities we experience, known to philosphers as 'qualia', are beyond the reach of science, even though all the associated physical phenomena may be precisely accounted for.

Is that what you mean? If so, 'incomplete' is true, and 'wrong' is true to that extent, in this context.

Scientific theories can, of course, be wrong or incomplete in other ways - and they most often are found to be incomplete. But the trend is quite evidently toward refinement and an ever greater working knowledge of the physical universe.

"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler